Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[ManofYesterday]

What do most cosmologists think about the issue would you say?

Most cosmologists seem to think the universe is past-finite.

[Jackalope]

Further? The big bang itself is a singularity.

This is not something that can be stated as a matter of fact with any degree of certainty.

[ManofYesterday]

Further? The big bang itself is a singularity.

This is not something that can be stated as a matter of fact with any degree of certainty.

This is what cosmologists say. Science is never certain, by the way. It's provisional. Only in mathematics and logic do you get certainties.

[Minimalist]

Why would we run out of energy?

I ran out of interest first.

[Alex K]

What do most cosmologists think about the issue would you say?

Most cosmologists seem to think the universe is past-finite.

Do they, though?

[ManofYesterday]

Most cosmologists seem to think the universe is past-finite.

Do they, though?

Yes, I read about them and talk to them.

Could you cut to the chase though? You seem to think most contemporary cosmologists do not think the universe is past-finite. If that's the case, then we should end the conversation because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

It's one thing to say, "yes, most contemporary cosmologists are leaning towards a past-finite universe, but here is an argument for why they may be wrong."

Instead, you're misleading people by acting as though most contemporary scientific evidence is not pointing towards a past-finite universe. Basically, you're full of shit. I'm interested in your emotional reason for ignoring most contemporary scientific evidence.

[Alex K]

Do they, though?

Yes, I read about them and talk to them.

Could you cut to the chase though? You seem to think most contemporary cosmologists do not think the universe is past-finite. If that's the case, then we should end the conversation because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

It's one thing to say, "yes, most contemporary cosmologists are leaning towards a past-finite universe, but here is an argument for why they make be wrong."

Instead, you're misleading people by acting as though most contemporary scientific evidence is not pointing towards a past-finite universe.

I haven't made a survey but I would assume that most cosmologists would agree that any past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down, and no one knows what theory correctly describes the universe around that point, and that consequently one cannot state with any certainty that time simply ends there.

[ManofYesterday]

Yes, I read about them and talk to them.

Could you cut to the chase though? You seem to think most contemporary cosmologists do not think the universe is past-finite. If that's the case, then we should end the conversation because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

It's one thing to say, "yes, most contemporary cosmologists are leaning towards a past-finite universe, but here is an argument for why they make be wrong."

Instead, you're misleading people by acting as though most contemporary scientific evidence is not pointing towards a past-finite universe.

I haven't made a survey but I would assume that most cosmologists would agree that any past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down, and no one knows what theory correctly describes the universe around that point, and that consequently one cannot state with any certainty that time simply ends there.

The statements the big bang is a singularity and the statement classic physics breaks down at the big bang are not mutually exclusive. That's your first problem. In fact, the reason why physics (as we know it) breaks down is because the big bang is a singularity.

Your second problem is ignoring where most contemporary scientific evidence points to: a cosmic beginning.

Again, it's one thing to say, "Yes, most evidence is pointing in this direction, but this argument for a past-eternal universe is very strong and here it is."

So tell me. What are your emotional reasons for ignoring science?

[Alex K]

I haven't made a survey but I would assume that most cosmologists would agree that any past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down, and no one knows what theory correctly describes the universe around that point, and that consequently one cannot state with any certainty that time simply ends there.

The statements the big bang is a singularity and the statement classic physics breaks down at the big bang are not mutually exclusive. That's your first problem. In fact, the reason why physics (as we know it) breaks down is because the big bang is a singularity.

In which sense precisely "is the big bang" a singularity?

Your second problem is ignoring where most contemporary scientific evidence points to: a cosmic beginning.

Again, it's one thing to say, "Yes, most evidence is pointing in this direction, but this argument for a past-eternal universe is very strong and here it is."

So tell me. What are your emotional reasons for ignoring science?

Don't be silly and stop simply restating that "scientific evidence points to a cosmic beginning" and be more concrete.

[Jesster]

I detect a familiar scent in this thread